I found out several months ago I literally lived about five minutes away from a ROCOR WR mission for several years without even knowing it existed. I guess it's a former Anglican(?) priest who appears to have built himself a house chapel in his basement. The ROCOR website claims his congregation to be less than ten, though from the looks of his website, that may be an overstatement. There is another pretty active WR congregation (Antiochian) about twenty minutes away, whose priest (a former Lutheran, I think) regularly participates in local pan-Orthodox services (usually in his WR vestments) and is known to many. Yet the ROCOR mission remains rather mysterious.

I really respected the attempt to make the Orthodox Church more than a Byzantine institution.

It already is. Some people just haven't read the memo.

I think the jury's still out in Orthodoxy on the non-Chalcedonians: heretics or misunderstood Orthodox? A conservative vs. liberal battle in Orthodoxy.

While others might differ, the jury doesn't seem out in my Church.

My Churches' verdicts are in: the non-Chalcedonians are guilty as charged with Orthodoxy.

I have a special place in my heart for Antiochians: all the ones I've ever met in real life have been eminently normal. And, unless I haven't been paying close attention, that seems to transfer to the internet. And on the internet, "normal" is a rare quality.

Logged

"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet. He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants. But he really isn't around anymore.

To me the ROCOR WR situation hasn't been proven dead, despite all the posting, hysteria, and quoting of the ukaz. What's the situation on the ground? What of the Benedictines, who predate the Vicariate by decades in ROCOR?

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

I really respected the attempt to make the Orthodox Church more than a Byzantine institution.

It already is. Some people just haven't read the memo.

I think the jury's still out in Orthodoxy on the non-Chalcedonians: heretics or misunderstood Orthodox? A conservative vs. liberal battle in Orthodoxy.

While others might differ, the jury doesn't seem out in my Church.

My Churches' verdicts are in: the non-Chalcedonians are guilty as charged with Orthodoxy.

I have a special place in my heart for Antiochians: all the ones I've ever met in real life have been eminently normal. And, unless I haven't been paying close attention, that seems to transfer to the internet. And on the internet, "normal" is a rare quality.

Don't fool yourself, the Antiochians have been tasked with secretly subverting the non-Chalcedonians and using mind control to implant Chalcedonian thoughts. Metropolitan Philip is behind it all. I alone have escaped to bring you this news at great personal cost.

Don't fool yourself, the Antiochians have been tasked with secretly subverting the non-Chalcedonians and using mind control to implant Chalcedonian thoughts. Metropolitan Philip is behind it all. I alone have escaped to bring you this news at great personal cost.

Canon XIX of Chalcedon II:If anyone betrays this Great and Holy Council by speaking of the methods outlined in the previous canons to the non-Chalcedonians enemies of God, let him be anathema!

Checking their website, the ROCOR WR vicarite has probably no more thena few hundred followers ( They may possibly have more clergy then laity among t

their ranks.I'm an outsider to this movement, but I'm guessing that ROCOR felt that these people were somewhateccentric and more trouble then their worth. Most WR people sem to be made up ofdisgrunteled ex Anglican/episcoplianswho wanted to get out of their decaying church yet retain some formof their western liturgical traditions ( Or perhaps a married clergy as well).Since anti Uniatism is all the rage in this ecumenical day and age, Itsprobably for the best that ROCOR is going out of the WR business. Maybe the Antiocheanswill follow suit. People who want to follow the rites of the western churchshould suck it up and head to the real west and let the real east alone. Hybridism and liturgical archeologist need to get resl.

« Last Edit: July 15, 2013, 08:57:20 PM by Robb »

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

To me the ROCOR WR situation hasn't been proven dead, despite all the posting, hysteria, and quoting of the ukaz. What's the situation on the ground? What of the Benedictines, who predate the Vicariate by decades in ROCOR?

Nevertheless, the fact remains that some WR parishes have been ordered to become Byzantine-Rite. (Btw, has anyone noticed that some people are describing that order as "uniatism" despite the fact that WRO are already Orthodox? Weird.)

People who want to follow the rites of the western churchshould suck it up and head to the real west and let the real east alone. Hybridism and liturgical archeologist need to get resl.

Which "real West"? Anglicanism? Roman Catholicism of the "Ordinary Form"? Roman Catholicism of the "Extraordinary Form"? Anglican Ordinariates? Does it work in reverse? Do the Eastern Catholics have to "suck it up" and head to the "real East" and leave the West alone?

At some point, it has to be about the faith.

Logged

"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet. He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants. But he really isn't around anymore.

People who want to follow the rites of the western churchshould suck it up and head to the real west and let the real east alone. Hybridism and liturgical archeologist need to get resl.

Which "real West"? Anglicanism? Roman Catholicism of the "Ordinary Form"? Roman Catholicism of the "Extraordinary Form"? Anglican Ordinariates? Does it work in reverse? Do the Eastern Catholics have to "suck it up" and head to the "real East" and leave the West alone?

The ROCOR vicarate had more questionable receptions beyond the unfortunate former-Fr. Nathan.

For example, when discussing a certain WRV mission with a priest I respect, he told me to avoid it because the priest attached to the mission:

-Was chrismated an Antiochian convert-Was ordained an ER Antiochian priest-Got divorced-Apostatized to Continuing Anglicanism; got ordained-Got remarried -Left Anglicanism to be baptized in the former Milan synod (which has since splintered), rejecting his former Orthodox chrismation-Was ordained in the Milan synod as part of its WR project-Was received into ROCOR's WRV despite the fact that a number of clergy from the Antiochians and other jurisdictions wrote ROCOR asking them not to receive him as a priest for the reasons listed above.

If this is correct, then the vicarate really did need to get its house in order. A WR vicarate should not be an end-run for those who cannot (or would not, in Fr. Nathan's case) be canonically received by other jurisdictions.

At very least a real canonical structure with clear guidelines for the reception of clergy and parishes needs to be in place if the WR is going to flourish. (The issue of liturgies also needs to be addressed, as others have said, but that is secondary at the moment.)

Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

The ROCOR vicarate had more questionable receptions beyond the unfortunate former-Fr. Nathan.

For example, when discussing a certain WRV mission with a priest I respect, he told me to avoid it because the priest attached to the mission:

-Was chrismated an Antiochian convert-Was ordained an ER Antiochian priest-Got divorced-Apostatized to Continuing Anglicanism; got ordained-Got remarried -Left Anglicanism to be baptized in the former Milan synod (which has since splintered), rejecting his former Orthodox chrismation-Was ordained in the Milan synod as part of its WR project-Was received into ROCOR's WRV despite the fact that a number of clergy from the Antiochians and other jurisdictions wrote ROCOR asking them not to receive him as a priest for the reasons listed above.

If this is correct, then the vicarate really did need to get its house in order. A WR vicarate should not be an end-run for those who cannot (or would not, in Fr. Nathan's case) be canonically received by other jurisdictions.

At very least a real canonical structure with clear guidelines for the reception of clergy and parishes needs to be in place if the WR is going to flourish. (The issue of liturgies also needs to be addressed, as others have said, but that is secondary at the moment.)

Only one part of that doesn't ring true to me. A Continuing Anglican church recognizes Orthodox orders; such would not have reordained him. Do you simply mean he served as a priest with them?

I really respected the attempt to make the Orthodox Church more than a Byzantine institution.

It already is. Some people just haven't read the memo.

I think the jury's still out in Orthodoxy on the non-Chalcedonians: heretics or misunderstood Orthodox? A conservative vs. liberal battle in Orthodoxy.

While others might differ, the jury doesn't seem out in my Church.

My Churches' verdicts are in: the non-Chalcedonians are guilty as charged with Orthodoxy.

I know our Church (Antioch) definitely views them as Orthodox, but do the other Churches have perspectives that can be generalized one way or the other?

Sort of. Alexandria more or less has been dragged to the Antiochian position (there are indications that our imported hierarchy might have inclinations otherwise, but have to do like the Romans in Rome). Jerusalem goes in the opposite direction, for reasons that perhaps should be obvious. The rest of the Churches are somewhat mixed, running a whole spectrum of perspective.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The ROCOR vicarate had more questionable receptions beyond the unfortunate former-Fr. Nathan.

For example, when discussing a certain WRV mission with a priest I respect, he told me to avoid it because the priest attached to the mission:

-Was chrismated an Antiochian convert-Was ordained an ER Antiochian priest-Got divorced-Apostatized to Continuing Anglicanism; got ordained-Got remarried -Left Anglicanism to be baptized in the former Milan synod (which has since splintered), rejecting his former Orthodox chrismation-Was ordained in the Milan synod as part of its WR project-Was received into ROCOR's WRV despite the fact that a number of clergy from the Antiochians and other jurisdictions wrote ROCOR asking them not to receive him as a priest for the reasons listed above.

If this is correct, then the vicarate really did need to get its house in order. A WR vicarate should not be an end-run for those who cannot (or would not, in Fr. Nathan's case) be canonically received by other jurisdictions.

At very least a real canonical structure with clear guidelines for the reception of clergy and parishes needs to be in place if the WR is going to flourish. (The issue of liturgies also needs to be addressed, as others have said, but that is secondary at the moment.)

Only one part of that doesn't ring true to me. A Continuing Anglican church recognizes Orthodox orders; such would not have reordained him. Do you simply mean he served as a priest with them?

That would be my guess. You know Anglicanism better than I do.

From my secondhand knowledge, he served as an Anglican priest. How that happened is in details I don't have.

Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

The ROCOR vicarate had more questionable receptions beyond the unfortunate former-Fr. Nathan.

For example, when discussing a certain WRV mission with a priest I respect, he told me to avoid it because the priest attached to the mission:

-Was chrismated an Antiochian convert-Was ordained an ER Antiochian priest-Got divorced-Apostatized to Continuing Anglicanism; got ordained-Got remarried -Left Anglicanism to be baptized in the former Milan synod (which has since splintered), rejecting his former Orthodox chrismation-Was ordained in the Milan synod as part of its WR project-Was received into ROCOR's WRV despite the fact that a number of clergy from the Antiochians and other jurisdictions wrote ROCOR asking them not to receive him as a priest for the reasons listed above.

If this is correct, then the vicarate really did need to get its house in order. A WR vicarate should not be an end-run for those who cannot (or would not, in Fr. Nathan's case) be canonically received by other jurisdictions.

At very least a real canonical structure with clear guidelines for the reception of clergy and parishes needs to be in place if the WR is going to flourish. (The issue of liturgies also needs to be addressed, as others have said, but that is secondary at the moment.)

Only one part of that doesn't ring true to me. A Continuing Anglican church recognizes Orthodox orders; such would not have reordained him. Do you simply mean he served as a priest with them?

How good are the Continuing Anglicans at observing their canons? PECUSA isn't so good.

Of course, for that we assUme that he told the CA that he had been a priest. It doesn't seem like honesty, if what is presented here stands correct, was his strong point.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

People who want to follow the rites of the western churchshould suck it up and head to the real west and let the real east alone. Hybridism and liturgical archeologist need to get resl.

Which "real West"? Anglicanism? Roman Catholicism of the "Ordinary Form"? Roman Catholicism of the "Extraordinary Form"? Anglican Ordinariates? Does it work in reverse? Do the Eastern Catholics have to "suck it up" and head to the "real East" and leave the West alone?

At some point, it has to be about the faith.

Hey, we'll trade our WR in exchange for their EC. lol

Not so sure about that. A number of their EC suffer from Spitting East Syndrome.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

To me the ROCOR WR situation hasn't been proven dead, despite all the posting, hysteria, and quoting of the ukaz. What's the situation on the ground? What of the Benedictines, who predate the Vicariate by decades in ROCOR?

Nevertheless, the fact remains that some WR parishes have been ordered to become Byzantine-Rite. (Btw, has anyone noticed that some people are describing that order as "uniatism" despite the fact that WRO are already Orthodox? Weird.)

The difference makes some people uncomfortable.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I found out several months ago I literally lived about five minutes away from a ROCOR WR mission for several years without even knowing it existed. I guess it's a former Anglican(?) priest who appears to have built himself a house chapel in his basement. The ROCOR website claims his congregation to be less than ten, though from the looks of his website, that may be an overstatement. There is another pretty active WR congregation (Antiochian) about twenty minutes away, whose priest (a former Lutheran, I think) regularly participates in local pan-Orthodox services (usually in his WR vestments) and is known to many. Yet the ROCOR mission remains rather mysterious.

I find the whole thing quite strange.

I love my ROCOR WR brothers and sisters, but there is quite a lot about their whole...I don't even know what to call it, "collective mentality" that I find very strange indeed. Spend enough time in the Occidentalis Yahoo group where many of them congregate, and you'll get a sense of what I mean. I'm sure Antioch has its share of this, but I've never experienced it.

And I can't help but think a lot of this has to do with their movement away from reintegrating Western catholic liturgical life with Orthodoxy towards an attempt to recreate the past. When your mindset is one of rejection, it would seem you can't help but attract people that have negative, puritanical, even fundamentalist attitudes. And when you can't accept the simple resuming of the living Western tradition, you open the floodgates towards DIY liturgy, each personal notion of what true "western orthodoxy" is supposed to be given equal footing resulting in strange things like a 5th c. French liturgy on the plains of Iowa. What is the connection?

I really don't mean to disparage them and I wish the RWRV nothing but the best, honestly. I hope they emerge from this situation stronger and headed in the right direction. But I think more than a shuffling of certain individuals will need to take place.

To me the ROCOR WR situation hasn't been proven dead, despite all the posting, hysteria, and quoting of the ukaz. What's the situation on the ground? What of the Benedictines, who predate the Vicariate by decades in ROCOR?

Nevertheless, the fact remains that some WR parishes have been ordered to become Byzantine-Rite. (Btw, has anyone noticed that some people are describing that order as "uniatism" despite the fact that WRO are already Orthodox? Weird.)

The difference makes some people uncomfortable.

Sometimes I get the impression that some people can't accept that there can be more than one kind of wrong. They hear of something wrong occurring wrt WRO, and assume it must be uniatism.

People who want to follow the rites of the western churchshould suck it up and head to the real west and let the real east alone. Hybridism and liturgical archeologist need to get resl.

Which "real West"? Anglicanism? Roman Catholicism of the "Ordinary Form"? Roman Catholicism of the "Extraordinary Form"? Anglican Ordinariates? Does it work in reverse? Do the Eastern Catholics have to "suck it up" and head to the "real East" and leave the West alone?

At some point, it has to be about the faith.

Indeed, I was just thinking that "head to the real west and let the real east alone" is just as bad as those Orthodox who say that Eastern Catholics aren't really Eastern since we aren't Orthodox.

I found out several months ago I literally lived about five minutes away from a ROCOR WR mission for several years without even knowing it existed. I guess it's a former Anglican(?) priest who appears to have built himself a house chapel in his basement. The ROCOR website claims his congregation to be less than ten, though from the looks of his website, that may be an overstatement. There is another pretty active WR congregation (Antiochian) about twenty minutes away, whose priest (a former Lutheran, I think) regularly participates in local pan-Orthodox services (usually in his WR vestments) and is known to many. Yet the ROCOR mission remains rather mysterious.

I find the whole thing quite strange.

I love my ROCOR WR brothers and sisters, but there is quite a lot about their whole...I don't even know what to call it, "collective mentality" that I find very strange indeed. Spend enough time in the Occidentalis Yahoo group where many of them congregate, and you'll get a sense of what I mean. I'm sure Antioch has its share of this, but I've never experienced it.

And I can't help but think a lot of this has to do with their movement away from reintegrating Western catholic liturgical life with Orthodoxy towards an attempt to recreate the past. When your mindset is one of rejection, it would seem you can't help but attract people that have negative, puritanical, even fundamentalist attitudes. And when you can't accept the simple resuming of the living Western tradition, you open the floodgates towards DIY liturgy, each personal notion of what true "western orthodoxy" is supposed to be given equal footing resulting in strange things like a 5th c. French liturgy on the plains of Iowa. What is the connection?

I really don't mean to disparage them and I wish the RWRV nothing but the best, honestly. I hope they emerge from this situation stronger and headed in the right direction. But I think more than a shuffling of certain individuals will need to take place.

I just had personal contact with the congregation in Iowa two weeks ago. If they expected this, they hid it very well.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The smartest thing for ROCOR to do right now, now that it's clearly in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy (since union with Russia), would be for it to release its former WR parishes to Antioch. Everybody would save face.

The smartest thing for ROCOR to do right now, now that it's clearly in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy (since union with Russia), would be for it to release its former WR parishes to Antioch. Everybody would save face.

Amen.

I am not sure the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America would accept many of the priest. At least 2 of them were turned down for ordination by the Antiochians, and thus why they ended up with ROCOR. Also, there have rules on how big a congregation must be before they are given mission status, let alone parish status.

The smartest thing for ROCOR to do right now, now that it's clearly in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy (since union with Russia), would be for it to release its former WR parishes to Antioch. Everybody would save face.

Amen.

I am not sure the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America would accept many of the priest. At least 2 of them were turned down for ordination by the Antiochians, and thus why they ended up with ROCOR. Also, there have rules on how big a congregation must be before they are given mission status, let alone parish status.

Yes. I suspect Met Philip would not be overly excited about getting this mess dumped in his lap.

The smartest thing for ROCOR to do right now, now that it's clearly in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy (since union with Russia), would be for it to release its former WR parishes to Antioch. Everybody would save face.

Amen.

I am not sure the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America would accept many of the priests. At least 2 of them were turned down for ordination by the Antiochians, and thus why they ended up with ROCOR. Also, there have rules on how big a congregation must be before they are given mission status, let alone parish status.

I didn't think of that. Thanks. So the ROCOR WR Vicariate was largely a paper church of tiny parishes. I was thinking more of the attitude adjustment they'd need, moving from the ROCOR WRV, an anti-Catholic spite church, to the AWRV, traditional Catholicism but without the Pope. My guess is a number of them could do it, in order to keep some form of their culture (just not the form they created/prefer), remain Orthodox, and thus save face. Then again some of the ROCOR WRV rites were so byzantinized I imagine a number of these people will just go Russian Byzantine.

Too many clergy and too few parishioners is a sign of vagante pathology it seems the ROCOR WRV had.

Quote

Don't we have Western Rite Clergy on this forum that can maybe clear up any misconceptions or doubts we may have?

byzcath has Fr David Straut of ROCOR, who says they're not killing their WR, just cleaning house after the lapse in discipline, which was a real problem (again, Nathan Monk). Though he might not be WR (I don't know), he's in a position to say.

The smartest thing for ROCOR to do right now, now that it's clearly in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy (since union with Russia), would be for it to release its former WR parishes to Antioch. Everybody would save face.

Amen.

I am not sure the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America would accept many of the priests. At least 2 of them were turned down for ordination by the Antiochians, and thus why they ended up with ROCOR. Also, there have rules on how big a congregation must be before they are given mission status, let alone parish status.

I didn't think of that. Thanks. So the ROCOR WR Vicariate was largely a paper church of tiny parishes. I was thinking more of the attitude adjustment they'd need, moving from the ROCOR WRV, an anti-Catholic spite church, to the AWRV, traditional Catholicism but without the Pope. My guess is a number of them could do it, in order to keep some form of their culture (just not the form they created/prefer), remain Orthodox, and thus save face. Then again some of the ROCOR WRV rites were so byzantinized I imagine a number of these people will just go Russian Byzantine.

I wonder if ROCOR could have achieved their desired result, without the scandal of ordering WR parishes to go Byzantine, by merely encouraging them to go Byzantine?

The smartest thing for ROCOR to do right now, now that it's clearly in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy (since union with Russia), would be for it to release its former WR parishes to Antioch. Everybody would save face.

Amen.

I am not sure the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America would accept many of the priests. At least 2 of them were turned down for ordination by the Antiochians, and thus why they ended up with ROCOR. Also, there have rules on how big a congregation must be before they are given mission status, let alone parish status.

I didn't think of that. Thanks. So the ROCOR WR Vicariate was largely a paper church of tiny parishes. I was thinking more of the attitude adjustment they'd need, moving from the ROCOR WRV, an anti-Catholic spite church, to the AWRV, traditional Catholicism but without the Pope. My guess is a number of them could do it, in order to keep some form of their culture (just not the form they created/prefer), remain Orthodox, and thus save face. Then again some of the ROCOR WRV rites were so byzantinized I imagine a number of these people will just go Russian Byzantine.

I wonder if ROCOR could have achieved their desired result, without the scandal of ordering WR parishes to go Byzantine, by merely encouraging them to go Byzantine?

My guess is no. Besides the usual cast of vagante priest wannabes (Nathan Monk), they probably had people very emotionally invested in their idea of pre-schism Western rites or non-romanized Anglican services. The stern Russians gave them a free hand, since they had anti-Romanism in common.

The smartest thing for ROCOR to do right now, now that it's clearly in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy (since union with Russia), would be for it to release its former WR parishes to Antioch. Everybody would save face.

Amen.

I am not sure the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America would accept many of the priests. At least 2 of them were turned down for ordination by the Antiochians, and thus why they ended up with ROCOR. Also, there have rules on how big a congregation must be before they are given mission status, let alone parish status.

I didn't think of that. Thanks. So the ROCOR WR Vicariate was largely a paper church of tiny parishes. I was thinking more of the attitude adjustment they'd need, moving from the ROCOR WRV, an anti-Catholic spite church, to the AWRV, traditional Catholicism but without the Pope. My guess is a number of them could do it, in order to keep some form of their culture (just not the form they created/prefer), remain Orthodox, and thus save face. Then again some of the ROCOR WRV rites were so byzantinized I imagine a number of these people will just go Russian Byzantine.

I wonder if ROCOR could have achieved their desired result, without the scandal of ordering WR parishes to go Byzantine, by merely encouraging them to go Byzantine?

My guess is no. Besides the usual cast of vagante priest wannabes (Nathan Monk), they probably had people very emotionally invested in their idea of pre-schism Western rites or non-romanized Anglican services. The stern Russians gave them a free hand, since they had anti-Romanism in common.

No, they had more in common than the opposition to the Vatican. At least the ones I know.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The smartest thing for ROCOR to do right now, now that it's clearly in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy (since union with Russia), would be for it to release its former WR parishes to Antioch. Everybody would save face.

Amen.

I am not sure the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America would accept many of the priests. At least 2 of them were turned down for ordination by the Antiochians, and thus why they ended up with ROCOR. Also, there have rules on how big a congregation must be before they are given mission status, let alone parish status.

I didn't think of that. Thanks. So the ROCOR WR Vicariate was largely a paper church of tiny parishes. I was thinking more of the attitude adjustment they'd need, moving from the ROCOR WRV, an anti-Catholic spite church, to the AWRV, traditional Catholicism but without the Pope. My guess is a number of them could do it, in order to keep some form of their culture (just not the form they created/prefer), remain Orthodox, and thus save face. Then again some of the ROCOR WRV rites were so byzantinized I imagine a number of these people will just go Russian Byzantine.

The smartest thing for ROCOR to do right now, now that it's clearly in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy (since union with Russia), would be for it to release its former WR parishes to Antioch. Everybody would save face.

Amen.

I am not sure the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America would accept many of the priests. At least 2 of them were turned down for ordination by the Antiochians, and thus why they ended up with ROCOR. Also, there have rules on how big a congregation must be before they are given mission status, let alone parish status.

I didn't think of that. Thanks. So the ROCOR WR Vicariate was largely a paper church of tiny parishes. I was thinking more of the attitude adjustment they'd need, moving from the ROCOR WRV, an anti-Catholic spite church, to the AWRV, traditional Catholicism but without the Pope. My guess is a number of them could do it, in order to keep some form of their culture (just not the form they created/prefer), remain Orthodox, and thus save face. Then again some of the ROCOR WRV rites were so byzantinized I imagine a number of these people will just go Russian Byzantine.

I wonder if ROCOR could have achieved their desired result, without the scandal of ordering WR parishes to go Byzantine, by merely encouraging them to go Byzantine?

My guess is no. Besides the usual cast of vagante priest wannabes (Nathan Monk), they probably had people very emotionally invested in their idea of pre-schism Western rites or non-romanized Anglican services. The stern Russians gave them a free hand, since they had anti-Romanism in common.

No, they had more in common than the opposition to the Vatican. At least the ones I know.

I would assume that TYF didn't mean that was the only thing they had in common.

There is a solution to bringing in non Orthodox clergy - make them complete a 3 year program at one of our Orthodox seminaries. It's that simple. Sure most won't do it, but do we really want all our convert clergy to get their theological training from the "Orthodox Christian Information Center"?

There is a solution to bringing in non Orthodox clergy - make them complete a 3 year program at one of our Orthodox seminaries. It's that simple. Sure most won't do it, but do we really want all our convert clergy to get their theological training from the "Orthodox Christian Information Center"?

Basil

More importantly, they should serve/observe for a period or time with a priest. We had a recent convert pastor (sort of out of the ordinary, as he had served in that capacity at stable Protestant parishes for decades) who was mentored by our priest for years, and then served alongside him for a period of time (at one point, with his congregation, as they were forced out of the building by those who stayed Baptist and their former parishioner allies) before ordination, and then thereafter.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

There is a solution to bringing in non Orthodox clergy - make them complete a 3 year program at one of our Orthodox seminaries. It's that simple. Sure most won't do it, but do we really want all our convert clergy to get their theological training from the "Orthodox Christian Information Center"?

There is a solution to bringing in non Orthodox clergy - make them complete a 3 year program at one of our Orthodox seminaries. It's that simple. Sure most won't do it, but do we really want all our convert clergy to get their theological training from the "Orthodox Christian Information Center"?

Basil

More importantly, they should serve/observe for a period or time with a priest. We had a recent convert pastor (sort of out of the ordinary, as he had served in that capacity at stable Protestant parishes for decades) who was mentored by our priest for years, and then served alongside him for a period of time (at one point, with his congregation, as they were forced out of the building by those who stayed Baptist and their former parishioner allies) before ordination, and then thereafter.

That is the way to go.

Mentoring is important, but the priest chosen to mentor must be exemplary.

There is a solution to bringing in non Orthodox clergy - make them complete a 3 year program at one of our Orthodox seminaries. It's that simple. Sure most won't do it, but do we really want all our convert clergy to get their theological training from the "Orthodox Christian Information Center"?

Basil

More importantly, they should serve/observe for a period or time with a priest. We had a recent convert pastor (sort of out of the ordinary, as he had served in that capacity at stable Protestant parishes for decades) who was mentored by our priest for years, and then served alongside him for a period of time (at one point, with his congregation, as they were forced out of the building by those who stayed Baptist and their former parishioner allies) before ordination, and then thereafter.

Sorry to focus on a small detail but ... so their preference would have been to share a church building with Baptists?

There is a solution to bringing in non Orthodox clergy - make them complete a 3 year program at one of our Orthodox seminaries. It's that simple. Sure most won't do it, but do we really want all our convert clergy to get their theological training from the "Orthodox Christian Information Center"?

Basil

More importantly, they should serve/observe for a period or time with a priest. We had a recent convert pastor (sort of out of the ordinary, as he had served in that capacity at stable Protestant parishes for decades) who was mentored by our priest for years, and then served alongside him for a period of time (at one point, with his congregation, as they were forced out of the building by those who stayed Baptist and their former parishioner allies) before ordination, and then thereafter.

Sorry to focus on a small detail but ... so their preference would have been to share a church building with Baptists?

No, the majority of the Baptist parish was going Orthodox. The stubborn minority then recruited every former Baptist member they could get a hold of to vote in the election on that. So the building remained Baptist (I don't know if it continued on after its majority of active members left).

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

There is a solution to bringing in non Orthodox clergy - make them complete a 3 year program at one of our Orthodox seminaries. It's that simple. Sure most won't do it, but do we really want all our convert clergy to get their theological training from the "Orthodox Christian Information Center"?

Basil

More importantly, they should serve/observe for a period or time with a priest. We had a recent convert pastor (sort of out of the ordinary, as he had served in that capacity at stable Protestant parishes for decades) who was mentored by our priest for years, and then served alongside him for a period of time (at one point, with his congregation, as they were forced out of the building by those who stayed Baptist and their former parishioner allies) before ordination, and then thereafter.

Sorry to focus on a small detail but ... so their preference would have been to share a church building with Baptists?

No, the majority of the Baptist parish was going Orthodox. The stubborn minority then recruited every former Baptist member they could get a hold of to vote in the election on that. So the building remained Baptist (I don't know if it continued on after its majority of active members left).

By "the stubborn minority" do you mean they were stubborn b/c they didn't want to 'dox, or because they didn't want to let go of the building?

There is a solution to bringing in non Orthodox clergy - make them complete a 3 year program at one of our Orthodox seminaries. It's that simple. Sure most won't do it, but do we really want all our convert clergy to get their theological training from the "Orthodox Christian Information Center"?

Basil

More importantly, they should serve/observe for a period or time with a priest. We had a recent convert pastor (sort of out of the ordinary, as he had served in that capacity at stable Protestant parishes for decades) who was mentored by our priest for years, and then served alongside him for a period of time (at one point, with his congregation, as they were forced out of the building by those who stayed Baptist and their former parishioner allies) before ordination, and then thereafter.

Sorry to focus on a small detail but ... so their preference would have been to share a church building with Baptists?

No, the majority of the Baptist parish was going Orthodox. The stubborn minority then recruited every former Baptist member they could get a hold of to vote in the election on that. So the building remained Baptist (I don't know if it continued on after its majority of active members left).

By "the stubborn minority" do you mean they were stubborn b/c they didn't want to 'dox, or because they didn't want to let go of the building?

both.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth